England's World Cup dream ended in heartbreaking fashion as Argentina scored twice late on to snatch a 2-1 semifinal victory, invoking scrutiny of Thomas Tuchel's in-game management.
After Anthony Gordon gave England a 55th-minute lead, Tuchel opted to increasingly reinforce his defence as Argentina pushed for an equaliser. By the closing stages, England had six defenders on the pitch and far less pace available on the counter, prompting questions over whether different substitutions could have helped them see the game out.
Tuchel insisted afterward that England "got too passive" rather than blaming the switch to a back five. But could different replacements have preserved England's attacking threat while still protecting their lead? Here's what Tuchel did -- and what we would have done instead.
What Tuchel did
Gordon off; Konsa on (72')
Seeing England drop back for 17 minutes following Gordon's goal, Tuchel's first change sacrificed the winger and brought on Ezri Konsa -- switching England's 4-3-2-1 to a 5-3-1-1. Konsa was one of three centre-backs alongside John Stones and Marc Guéhi.
"We sat deep straight away after our goal, not after the substitutions," Tuchel said postmatch. "We needed a back five because of the way they attacked with four players across the front line."
What he should have done
Rogers, Gordon off; Saka, Rashford on
We would have actually done this earlier than the 72nd minute.
What you frequently see top teams do -- regardless of the score -- is rotate their wingers to inject fresh legs into the attack and add energy to the counter. Paris Saint-Germain, for example, routinely swap Bradley Barcola and Désiré Doué. Morgan Rogers for Bukayo Saka is a substitution Tuchel should have been considering early in the second half -- especially given Saka's fitness didn't appear a major concern after his return against Norway -- even after the Aston Villa star, so good technically but not a natural winger, had set up Gordon for the opener.
- Tactics, tiredness and Tuchel: How England lost their World Cup semi
- Tuchel's retreat set up England's World Cup exit as Argentina smelt blood
- Every England World Cup exit since 1966 - revisiting 60 years of hurt
In an ideal world, England would have kept Gordon on, but let's trust Tuchel's assessment that he was tiring. Rashford should have been the replacement, just as he was to good effect against Croatia. That would have retained England's shape while restoring a genuine threat on the counter -- something that disappeared almost entirely in the final half hour.
England had kept Argentina at bay for so long by defending on the front foot rather than retreating into their own half -- exactly what a side with plenty of technicians but little outright pace wants you to do. Why not keep being positive?
What Tuchel did
James, Rice off; Burn, O'Reilly on (82')
These ones were even more contentious. James and Rice were fitness concerns coming into the game so their departures weren't huge surprises, but Tuchel's tactics from here were. Heading machine Dan Burn was on, while Nico O'Reilly, exclusively a left-back in previous games, came on a a faux left-winger. England now had four centre-backs on, and six defenders. O'Reilly and Spence on the left, and Konsa at right wing-back, raised eyebrows.
What he should have done
James, Rice, Kane off; Burn, Watkins, O'Reilly on
Presuming England are still 1-0 up in the 82nd minute, now is the time we'd facilitate a switch to five at the back. We'll stick with Tuchel's call to replace James and Rice, but while Burn still comes on at the back and (hopefully) deals with Argentina's crosses, O'Reilly would come on as a left wing-back hack in this scenario, with Spence switching to the right.
The other change you'll notice is bringing off England's record World Cup goalscorer. Kane for Watkins was a move consistently made in previous tournaments when protecting a lead, as the Bayern Munich striker -- undoubtedly one of the world's best -- thrives with runners around him, not when leading a line singlehandedly, harrying defenders. We also saw this against Mexico, when -- while admittedly with 10 men -- Tuchel's tactics verged towards too defensive, with no out ball. It's where Watkins could have been perfect.
Argentina equalise: What should Tuchel have done next?
Stepping back into reality, let's imagine we have made Tuchel's subs -- Konsa, Burn, O'Reilly on -- and Argentina have just equalised in the 85th minute. Tuchel still had two subs at his disposal, with five minutes of normal time and a mountain of stoppage time -- it ended up being nine minutes -- to come.
What Tuchel did
No subs made
Tuchel's next sub didn't come until the 96th minute, four minutes after Lautaro Martinez's eventual winner.
What he should have done
Stones, Spence off; Saka, Mainoo on
It was clear at this stage that the six-defenders-on-the-pitch tactic was not working. Going toe to toe with Argentina was. The message Tuchel sent to his team by not making a sub was that England were hanging on until extra time, with zero threat of a counter on the pitch. Rogers, Bellingham and Kane -- none blessed with outright pace -- were the only attacking players on the pitch.
Here, we would have returned to a back four. Spence, one of England's better players on the night, comes off to allow Konsa to play right-back, with Guéhi and Burn at centre half. Saka goes to the right wing, with Rogers on the left. And we finally see Kobbie Mainoo, who must be wondering how he didn't have a kick at this World Cup given Rice's fitness. The Manchester United midfielder would have been a perfect foil for Anderson's energy, and ideally allowed England to control possession again.
"It's not a matter of structure," Tuchel said after the game. "You can defend actively in any formation. We got too passive and got punished for that."
England were certainly passive. But could different substitutions -- and the more positive message they would have sent -- have changed that?
